DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to application filed 8/27/2025.
2. Claims 1-6, 8-10 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-
Claims 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6, 8-10 are directed to a method and system claims – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claims 1, 6 are directed to – calculate a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of a user and for determining whether or not a service provider provides a service to the user; and transmit the calculated reliability score to a business operator terminal of the service provider – that fall under the abstract idea categories Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Independent claim 8 is directed to – calculating a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of the user and is used for determining whether or not the service provider provides a service to the user, and wherein the terminal calculates the reliability score of the user based on the received reliability score calculation rule and transmits the calculated reliability score to the business operator terminal, and wherein the business operator terminal determines whether or not it is possible to provide the service to the user using the received reliability score, and notifies an employee of the service provider of a determination result – that fall under the abstract idea categories Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims –
(Claim 2) receive a reliability score calculation rule for calculating the reliability score; and calculate the reliability score based on the reliability score calculation rule and information related to digital contents held by the user.
(Claim 3) calculate the reliability score based on holding status of the digital contents stored in a digital wallet.
(Claim 4) calculate the reliability score based on a usage history of the digital contents stored in a digital wallet.
(Claim 5) calculate the reliability score based on a usage history of services provided using the digital contents stored in a digital wallet.
(Claim 9) wherein the business operator terminal requests the terminal to provide a document necessary for providing the service to the user in a case where it is determined that the service can be provided to the user, and wherein the terminal, in response to a request, transmits digital contents specified by the business operator terminal, from among the digital contents stored in a digital wallet, to the business operator terminal.
(Claim 10) wherein the business operator terminal transmits details of the service provided to the user to the terminal.
– also fall under Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-6, 8-10 recite judicial exception(s).
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a terminal comprising a memory and processor; business operator terminal; digital wallet. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than use the computer as a tool and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – calculating a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of the user and is used for determining whether or not the service provider provides a service to the user, and wherein the terminal calculates the reliability score of the user based on the received reliability score calculation rule and transmits the calculated reliability score to the business operator terminal, and wherein the business operator terminal determines whether or not it is possible to provide the service to the user using the received reliability score, and notifies an employee of the service provider of a determination result – that merely uses generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – calculating a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of the user and is used for determining whether or not the service provider provides a service to the user, and wherein the terminal calculates the reliability score of the user based on the received reliability score calculation rule and transmits the calculated reliability score to the business operator terminal, and wherein the business operator terminal determines whether or not it is possible to provide the service to the user using the received reliability score, and notifies an employee of the service provider of a determination result – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-10
Claims 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mardikar et al. (US20250061459A1) in view of Rose (US20210176240A1).
Claim 1:
Mardikar discloses:
A terminal comprising:
at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to:
calculate a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of a user and for determining whether or not a service provider provides a service to the user; and
(See Mardikar: Para
[0032] (“For example, the transaction request may be received in response to a consumer initiating a transaction with the merchant 109. Each transaction request may comprise any suitable transaction related data, such as, for example, a transaction account number, a transaction instrument number, a transaction instrument expiration date, transaction account billing information (e.g., address, city, state, zip code, etc.), a user email address, an IP address (e.g., from an online purchaser), and/or the like.”)
[0041] (“To calculate the dynamic trust score, the trust server may evaluate data from the transaction, the digital identity database, from the dynamic trust score database, and from the third party data providers. For example, the data from the digital identity database may indicate that the user is who they claim to be based on various data (e.g., identity claims) stored on or available to the digital identity database.”)
Mardikar does not specifically disclose:
transmit the calculated reliability score to a business operator terminal of the service provider.
However, Rose discloses the above limitation (See Rose: Para [0203]) (“The service may perform a risk analysis 807 and calculated a risk score 808. The risk score may be provided, in response, back to the point of sale.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the above noted disclosure of Mardikar as it relates to calculating dynamic trust score using machine learning model to include the above noted disclosure of Rose as it relates to security protocols for distributed terminals. The motivation for combining the references would have been to determine fraud risk in cryptocurrency transactions.
Claim 2:
receive a reliability score calculation rule for calculating the reliability score; and
calculate the reliability score based on the reliability score calculation rule and information related to digital contents held by the user.
(See Mardikar: Para [0017])
Claim 3:
calculate the reliability score based on holding status of the digital contents stored in a digital wallet.
(See Mardikar: Para [0042])
Claim 4:
calculate the reliability score based on a usage history of the digital contents stored in a digital wallet.
(See Mardikar: Para [0042])
Claim 5:
calculate the reliability score based on a usage history of services provided using the digital contents stored in a digital wallet.
(See Mardikar: Para [0042])
Claim 6:
A control method of a terminal, the control method comprising:
calculating a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of a user and for determining whether or not a service provider provides a service to the user; and
(See Mardikar: Para [0032], [0041])
transmitting the calculated reliability score to a business operator terminal of the service provider.
(See Rose: Para [0203])
Claim 8:
A system comprising:
a terminal possessed by a user; and
a business operator terminal managed by a service provider, and
wherein the business operator terminal transmits to the terminal a reliability score calculation rule for calculating a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of the user and is used for determining whether or not the service provider provides a service to the user, and
(See Mardikar: Para [0032], [0041])
wherein the terminal calculates the reliability score of the user based on the received reliability score calculation rule and transmits the calculated reliability score to the business operator terminal, and
(See Rose: Para [0203])
wherein the business operator terminal determines whether or not it is possible to provide the service to the user using the received reliability score, and notifies an employee of the service provider of a determination result.
(See Mardikar: Para [0050])
Claim 8:
A system comprising: a terminal possessed by a user; and
a business operator terminal managed by a service provider, and
wherein the business operator terminal transmits to the terminal a reliability score calculation rule for calculating a reliability score, which is a score indicating a trust level of the user and is used for determining whether or not the service provider provides a service to the user, and
wherein the terminal calculates the reliability score of the user based on the received reliability score calculation rule and transmits the calculated reliability score to the business operator terminal, and
(See Mardikar: Para [0032], [0041])
wherein the business operator terminal determines whether or not it is possible to provide the service to the user using the received reliability score, and notifies an employee of the service provider of a determination result.
(See Mardikar: Para [0050])
Claim 9:
wherein the business operator terminal requests the terminal to provide a document necessary for providing the service to the user in a case where it is determined that the service can be provided to the user, and
wherein the terminal, in response to a request, transmits digital contents specified by the business operator terminal, from among the digital contents stored in a digital wallet, to the business operator terminal.
(See Rose: Para [0222])
Claim 10:
wherein the business operator terminal transmits details of the service provided to the user to the terminal.
(See Rose: Para [0203])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights